Well, you felt the need to over simplify things before, so why not over-exaggerate?
I’m sure that John Adams, George Washington, and the other founding fathers found the laws regarding the speed of their horses to be governed so much that they must fight back against the English and their rule of the American colony.
I appreciate your dislike for Rendell, but if you want to go off on a tangent, at least make it one that is somewhat correlated to your previous arguments. Taxing the interstates, while unpopular with some, is not against the law, does not limit to wish the harm in which people can inflict upon themselves and others because of their carelessness.
A good example of authorities telling you what is best is the use of Cigarettes. It’s now a well known fact that they are harmful to your health and to those around you. There are some that would like to see them outlawed. They are not. People who wish to partake in them are warned and cautioned against the problems and downfalls of the cigarette, but nonetheless are legally allowed to partake in them.
You are confusing driving with a right, which it is not. It is a privilege. It is a right to bear arms. It is a right to free speech. It is not a right to own a motor vehicle, therefore if you do not with to abide by the laws set forth, then feel free to no longer drive. It is real simple.
If you are naive enough or stupid enough (or both) to believe that you are standing up for your rights and fighting the man by refusing to abide by laws which neither impede your ability nor limit the effectiveness of your vehicle, then you are the “sheeple” as you’d like to say.
If you wanted to make such a difference, you’d be out doing it. Instead, your the guy standing on the corner or screaming from the mountain tops for no reason other than to hear (or in this case, read) his own words.